Search form

Are Dogs People? Really?

Are dogs people? Psychology Today blogger Gregory Berns thinks so. Recently, in a New York Times op ed titled, “Dogs Are People, Too” Berns, a professor of neuroeconomics at Emory University, argued that dogs “seem to have emotions just like us” and that our four-legged friends should be entitled to “personhood.”

These claims are based on a study of canine brain activity published last year in the journal PLoS One (here). Using operant conditioning, Berns and his colleagues trained two dogs over several months to hold their heads completely motionless for 30 seconds in an M.R.I. machine, not an easy task. The dogs were then shown hand signals that indicated the presence or absence of a food reward while researchers recorded their brains’ firing patterns. The scientists found that when the dogs were given signals indicating a reward, a part of the brain called the caudate nucleus showed increased activity.

It is a clever study, and it offers the first glimpse into the inner workings of the brains of man’s best friend. The dogs were enthusiastic about participating in the research (see this very cool video of the training procedures). Since the publication of the PLoS article, Berns’ team has trained a dozen “M.R.I. certified” dogs. This is certainly an important line of research, and my friend and fellow PT blogger Marc Bekoff agrees with Dr, Berns' interpretation of his work. (See here for Marc's perspective on the study.) However, I don't find some of the claims Professor Berns made in the Times convincing. Here are the reasons why.

Dog Minds Are A Major Area of Research

My first problem is the assertion in the Times that canine M.R.I. research “pushes away the limitations of behaviorism.” Ironically, as described in their PLoS One article, the training procedures were all taken from the behaviorists’ tool kit. The trainers used classic operant conditioning techniques known to all undergraduate psychology majors—shaping, chaining, and primary and secondary reinforcement (clicker training). Further, the dogs performed a simple discrimination task —exactly the same task that generations of behaviorists subjected pigeons and rats to in Skinner boxes.

More importantly, when it comes to the canine mind, the limitations of behaviorism were pushed back well before the publication of this study. Over the past 15 years, the study of dog minds has become a cottage industry among cognitive ethologists. Canine researchers from Manhattan to Budapest have published studies showing that dogs are attuned to human emotional states (here), can learn human words with amazing rapidity (here), and even play a doggy version of Simon Says (here). Further, old school behaviorists would be delighted to learn that the caudate nucleus is a reward center in dogs—but there aren’t many of them left. The idea that an M.R.I. study is the final nail in the cofin of behaviorism is absurd.

Second, the real importance of the M.R.I. study is not that the caudate nucleus lights up when a dog is happy. Rather it is that dogs can be trained to sit motionless in an M.R.I. machine so we can see what is going on in their heads. As the Emory research team pointed out, it has long been known that the caudate nucleus is involved in the experience of pleasure in human and non-human animals. Indeed, in their PLoS article they explicitly state that their results “were not surprising.”

Are Dog Emotions Just The Same As Human Emotions?

Third, professor Berns argues that his M.R.I. studies indicate that dogs have the same emotions as people. I don’t see the connection. There is considerable disagreement among neuroscientists about the meaning of M.R.I pictures in humans, much less dogs. (See, for example, here.) Further, just

because the same part of a human and a dog brain light up at the prospect of eating a juicy piece of steak does not mean that the emotional lives of dogs and people are the same. I have interviewed animal activists whose eyes lit up when they told me about the happiness they derive from not consuming animal flesh. I would, however, be surprised if Dr. Berns’s dog Callie experienced the same emotional satisfaction from giving up meat.

Finally, I am baffled by the claim that neural activity in the caudate nucleus bestows “personhood” on a creature. Linking personhood to nerve cells can backfire. Anti-abortionists use the same logic to argue that fetuses are persons because they (presumably) show embryonic brain activity at 40 days gestational age (see here). And, if a hunk of neural tissue has considerable moral relevance, doesn’t the fact that my brain is 20 times bigger than the brain of my neighbor’s beagle also count for something?

What Is “Personhood” (And What If Dogs Are Persons?)

Nor am I sure what it means to give dogs personhood. If it means we should treat dogs better, I am all for it. But I think personhood implies the recognition and respect for another creature’s autonomy. As the University of Colorado sociologist and animal protectionist Leslie Irvine points out, there is a downside to considering animals persons. She writes (here), "If we recognize the intrinsic value of animals’ lives, then it is immoral to keep them for our pleasure, regardless of whether we call them companions or pets." If, as Dr. Berns claims in the title of his op ed, “Dogs Are People, Too”, how can we justify imprisoning them in our houses, making them fetch and sit on command, and depriving them of the joys of sex by removing their reproductive organs?

Dr. Berns’ lab is producing ground breaking research. Further, as indicated in Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods book, The Genius of Dogs, lots of evidence indicates that dogs are smart and have emotional lives. However, the claims that dogs and humans experience the same emotions and that dogs are persons do not logically follow from the fact that the caudate nucleus lights up when dogs are happy.

my neighbor's mother-in-law makes $67 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her payment was $21816 just working on the laptop for a few hours. look at these guys http://www.jobs64.com

Argument # 1: "I have interviewed animal activists whose eyes lit up when they told me about the happiness they derive from not consuming animal flesh. I would, however, be surprised if Dr. Berns’s dog Callie experienced the same emotional satisfaction from giving up meat." It would only be a valid comparison if Callie herself voluntarily chose to become a non-meat consuming canine. Her guardian not giving her meat does not equal the same thing.

Argument # 2: "If we recognize the intrinsic value of animals’ lives, then it is immoral to keep them for our pleasure, regardless of whether we call them companions or pets...How can we justify imprisoning them in our houses, making them fetch and sit on command, and depriving them of the joys of sex by removing their reproductive organs?" Well, since most people consider human children persons of intrinsic value, how can we justify imprisoning them in our homes, making them do chores, mind their manners, and forbid them to have sex until they reach a certain age and (hopefully) a level of maturity where they self govern their actions to acceptable levels set by adult humans?

I fail to see the connection in either of these arguments presented by the article author.

I agree. Most of the dogs I have had chose to live with me and were free to leave had they wanted to. Keeping dogs fenced in. as with children is more about keeping them safe from road traffic etc. that hey may not fully understand rather than keeping them jailed.

I have a hard time taking Hal Herzog's scientific reasoning seriously. He is a so-called leader in Antrozoology who recently posted a picture of himself with a baby chimp taken at a facility known for animal exploitation. When this was pointed out to him rather than discussing the issue (or maybe apologizing for not knowing) he took the 'scientific' approach of claiming he never visited that facility, banned anyone who called him on it, and then told people to find a real issue.

Robert -- Sorry you don't like my Facebook page picture. (My wife doesn't like my favorite shirt -- you can't please everyone.) I am unclear what my Facebook page has to do with the issue of whether the neural activity in caudate nucleus gives a creature personhood.

My own two cents is that while Berns et al got written consent from the dogs' owners to conduct this research, if dogs were actually granted personhood it would mean that no such future research could be conducted without first getting written or verbal consent from the dogs themselves.

Lee Charles Kelly - your reasoning is faulty. You are assuming that personhood for dogs is the same as human personhood. It is not. Recognizing personhood for dogs would mean granting basic species-appropriate rights to dogs. Dogs do not care if they can read or write. Their currency of consent is different. So your comment isn't logical.

FYI - Berns dog is two years old -- translates into 14 years of age in "person years." This means that the dog would not be required to give written CONSENT though his adult guardian would. However, Berns dog would be considered a minor under the IRB statues in the United States. This means that, if deemed a person, IRBs would generally require the dog sign a written ASSENT form. Arf, arf...

The conversion of dogs age to "person years" is human applied estimate of the dogs physical maturity and is really never a valid way of comparison. However studies have likened adult dogs to humans of only a few years age. Dogs should not be required to give consent or assent. People should never consider using them in experiments that could cause them harm in any way. To do so would justify a superior being from outer space arriving on earth and using people in experiments because they might consider us as some lower form of life.

Hey guys - you are making a serious but common error with this exchange. This is NOT about human personhood or rights. Yet, you are applying human criteria to the issue. This is not what personhood in dogs is about at all.

I can imagine that Gregory Berns would like to demonstrate evidence that dogs have a great deal more in common with people than people generally acknowledge, and are perhaps worthy of better treatment. Many pet lovers already know intuitively that dogs are people, or at the very least, are capable of having mutually beneficial emotional interactions with people at a level of greater depth and complexity and than many human to human relationships. Those who do not already understand this intuitively, or have not experienced it directly may need to see more real evidence to support this. Our furry friends thank you.

Thanks for clarifying the difference between written consent and written assent.

On a similar note, I taught my Dalmatian Freddie to bark on command using the commands, "One..." "Two..." "Three..." etc. And he would almost invariably bark the exact number of times I asked him to. Yet I never got the sense that he knew the difference between those numbers, or even that he knew what he was doing. It seemed to me that he did it because he somehow felt that I wanted him to.

I have had a lot of dogs in my life time. Each one is different. Even some that I did not own. I just wanted to share this because at times it confounds me to know that this happened to me and it is true. I was once trying to catch a pony who would not let anyone touch him. He run down to a neighbors house, and joined his horses. This pony was running lose and was not mine. I was just trying to get him off the road so he would not get hurt. The neighbors dog where the pony went came out to me and was barking at me. I do not show fear to animals like that, so I told the dog that she was a good dog for protecting her masters property and what a good dog she was. I was in a electric wheelchair at the time. This dog got the pony out of the pasture the pony started down the other street the dog turned the pony around and got it started back down to my house. There were other people out there too were trying to help, they said "Oh we don't need to have a dog." But this dog was an Austrian Cattle dog, and I said just watch and sure enough she turned that pony around toward my ranch. Now can someone tell me how she knew to do this for me? That is all I said to her. She helped me, and the kids that were with me to get this pony to my place. If they do not understand what we need then how in the world did she know to do this for me? There are other stories that I could tell you but right now this one is one I would like to know how did she know to do this. If they do not understand us but do somthing like this, yet we can not understand them either. Sandy

I think your experience clearly illustrates what I said above, that dogs feel what we feel. I don't see any other way to explain what happened with you and your horse. Dogs retrieve our unspoken desires. It's what they do.

Yes I feel that way too. I realy do believe that dogs are and so are horses, they know what we are thinking. I could tell you more stories about the dogs I have had. One is my first Malamute that I rescued helped my husband. He had bad head aches so he would get on the floor to help with his head ache. She came over to him licked the back of his neck then in her time she knew when hit his neck with her nose his neck would pot and his head ache went away. One time I was at a dog show she was my show dog, he had one of his head aches so he got on the floor she did the same thing. People around us said "Oh I would not let her do that". I said well watch what will happen. She did her thing and he got rid of his head ache. They could not belive it. Sad to say she is no longer with us. She has gone across the bridge now. But we have two more Malamutes the male helps us to wake Grandma up she is dibetic and some times her surgar is low and he wants to go in to wake her up. What I do is let them do what they want but I am the pack leader, There is no fighting in this house, I also have a GSD too, who was here before I got these two Malamutes. I could tell you more. Sandy

Hal, I'm not a scientist so I can't argue issues about canine caudates! But from a legal p.o.v. we have to be careful not to confuse what we mean when we talk about "people", "persons" and "humans".

The title of the NY Times article ("Dogs are people, too" – probably chosen by an editor) is already confusing. Dogs are not "people." Nor will they ever be "humans". But at some future time they may very well be persons.

In law, a "person" is an entity that can take legal action. Corporations and ships are recognized as persons. So, in India, are Hindu idols.

When we consider whether dogs or any other nonhuman animals should be recognized as legal persons, we're simply considering whether they can have any legal rights. We're not asking whether they should be viewed as humans – any more than they or we should be viewed as ships!

So the question isn't whether MRI scans show that they have emotions just like humans. Rather, what a judge will have to consider first is whether a particular nonhuman animal is self-aware, has advanced cognitive abilities and is reasonably autonomous. If the answer is yes, then we can argue that this animal needs to be recognized as having certain basic legal rights – specifically the right to bodily liberty and bodily integrity. Not "human rights", but rights appropriate to who he or she is.

As you know, the Nonhuman Rights Project is getting ready to file a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a nonhuman animal. We will be petitioning the court to recognize that he/she has the legal right to bodily liberty and bodily integrity. This is a first-of-its-kind case, and will most likely be filed in the next few months on behalf of a great ape or an elephant.

By definition, if the judge – and then, more importantly, a state high court – agrees that she has this most basic legal right, then that means she is a legal person. (Not a human, not "people", but a person.)

Meanwhile, right now, she remains a "thing" – a piece of property with no more legal rights than your DVD player or your kitchen table. (Cruelty laws provide that there are certain things you may not do to her, just as there are laws preventing me from stealing your kitchen table. But the table itself has no rights at all.)

Berns is right in saying that it may be many years before a dog is recognized as a legal person. We just don't have the scientific evidence to petition on their behalf. But we do have that evidence when it comes to great apes, elephants and certain dolphins. (Also possibly for certain birds.)

From my reading of Berns's article, what he's done is to add another piece to the growing body of evidence supporting the argument that humans are not the only animals with emotions, self-awareness and autonomy. This kind of evidence may, in turn, help to support future cases where it's being argued that particular nonhuman animals deserve certain fundamental rights that are relevant to their species and are in their own best interests.

Michael,
You may not be a scientist, but you are a very smart guy. My intuition is that personhood = person = a human person. However, as I learned in an animal law conference a couple of years ago, in a legal sense, my intuition is wrong. (In short, you are right.)

However, I have some problems with excessive broadening of the term “person.” The Supreme Court’s decision that corporations are persons had the unintended consequence of (possibly) destroying American democracy. If embryos are declared persons by the courts, Roe v Wade goes down the tubes. My problem is that considering corporations, chickens, Hundu gods, and embryos “persons” broadns the term so much it becomes meaningless.

My intuition (admittedly a lousy source of morality) agrees with you that creatures like great apes and cetaceans merit some rights (e.g., life, the right to not be caged). However, my intuition does not extend these rights to birds and groundhogs (which are eating my flowers) and Hindu gods. Some have argued that we need different categories of “persons.” – say, “human persons” and “non-human persons.” However, this gets us back to where we started. I assume, by the way, that personhood implies, at least, the right not to be eaten. I suspect you would applaud this. However, the courts are not immune to public opinion, and 95% of Americans consume 10 billion non-human persons a year because they taste good.

Finally, my objection to Berns’ op ed is also based on that fact it overstated the importance of the MRI study’s results. (The methods are groundbreaking.) Scientists have long known that the caudate nucleus was involved in emotions in human and non-human animals. Further, it implied that the Berns’ lab had discovered that dogs had emotions. Not true. Hopefully, his book will give due credit to scientists dating back to Darwin who investigated the emotions of dogs. This would include people like Adam Miklosi, Brian Hare, Alexandra Horowtiz, Kurt Kotrschal, Julia Kaminski, Josep Call, etc., etc. etc. (Dog mind research labs are spring up faster than weeds in my garden.)

Hal, We fully expect that, as you suggest, one of the first questions that will come up in court is: "If I agree with you that this chimpanzee is a legal person with the capacity for certain specific rights, are you going to be back here next week with a cow and a chicken and a pig?"

It's the same slippery slope that the famous judge Lord Mansfield had to confront when attorneys for the American slave James Somerset went to court in London in 1772. Somerset, who had been brought to London by his owner, Charles Steuart, had escaped and been recaptured, and was now lying in chains on a ship that was about to leave for the sugar plantations of Jamaica. But a group of abolitionist attorneys petitioned the High Court, using the writ of habeas corpus, that Somerset should be recognized as a legal person with appropriate rights to bodily liberty.

Steuart's attorneys couldn't prove that Somerset was subhuman, so they argued, instead, that this was a slippery slope and that if Lord Mansfield set a precedent by granting him his freedom, this would lead to the collapse of the sugar and cotton industries in the American colonies – and the downfall of the entire Western economy.

Mansfield pleaded with both sides to settle their differences out of court because he knew where this was leading. But they stood their ground. And so the judge issued his ruling, saying that "though the heavens may fall" he had no choice but to conclude that slavery is "odious" and that Somerset had to be set free.

This was all still before the Declaration of Independence, but it soon led to similar cases up and down the newly born United States. In the north, judges rules mainly pro-freedom; in the south, several states went so far as to pass laws that negated habeas corpus altogether for slaves! Eventually it took a civil war to settle the matter.

So yes, there is a slippery slope. And who knows where all this will lead. But that didn't stop Lord Mansfield from doing what he knew was right. And it should not stop us from agreeing that the science is solid when it comes to great apes, elephants and dolphins. And that one day it may be solid in relation to cows, pigs and dogs, too. Even your groundhogs!

P.S. I would argue that naysayers are, in fact, worrying about the wrong slippery slope. It's not the granting of legal rights to other animals that's going to cause problems to us humans, but rather our failure to grant those rights. By treating them as "things" and "property" to be commoditized and exploited at will, we're already doing untold damage to ourselves, too.

Michael, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write these two long comments. I could not agree more with what you are saying, and I'm grateful that many people don't agree with the article. My biggest problem with the article is just this:

'"If we recognize the intrinsic value of animals’ lives, then it is immoral to keep them for our pleasure, regardless of whether we call them companions or pets." If, as Dr. Berns claims in the title of his op ed, “Dogs Are People, Too”, how can we justify imprisoning them in our houses, making them fetch and sit on command, and depriving them of the joys of sex by removing their reproductive organs?'

That's EXACTLY true though Mr. Herzog! You have to think about these things, and question whether or not it is right to keep animals as 'slaves' simply for our own pleasure. I think that you can be a caretaker for animals without having to give them up though, if you just think about how it benefits them, instead of just how they benefit the human race (who, IMO, have a serious case of superiority complex). I keep dogs who aren't penned up and could, if they wanted, run off at any time. But they are treated very well and stick around (not treated like babies or humans, but treated as they should be treated - for their own species needs).

Hal – in your criticism of Greg Berns’ MRI study with dogs you set up a number of straw men. First, as you know, Greg never equated activity in the caudate nucleus with personhood. In the NY Times article he was simply exploring the issue of personhood for members of other species. Indeed, as Michael Mountain has said, personhood has to do with legal criteria and basic species-specific rights. Greg is not claiming that dogs are humans (despite the media’s take on the issue). Second, you claim that personhood in dogs would mean not “imprisoning” them and “forcing” them to play fetch. But dogs are domesticated and have co-evolved with us to enjoy some of the same environments and activities. Playing fetch with a dog is no more “forceful” than playing catch with a child or friend. Your argument here doesn’t stand up. Third, as you know, behaviorism has more to do with the reluctance to theorize and acknowledge thought processes in other animals (i.e., what is in the “black box”). It is not about the specific techniques used to train someone. Sure, Greg used standard conditioning to teach the dogs to go inside the MRI scanner but that is totally beside the point of the study. The behaviorist methods simply take the place of asking the dog to do so in English. You know that. It isn’t an inherent aspect of what Berns was trying to explore. Fourth, although we always need to be careful when interpreting neuroimaging findings, the fact is that the caudate is an evolutionarily highly conserved structure which has been shown now to be differentially activated in dogs under the same conditions which would activate the caudate in humans – positive experience. That is not definitive but pretty strongly suggestive inferential evidence that there is something shared between dogs and humans. If we were to take your criticism seriously then we would need to throw out the entire corpus of literature on neuroimaging in humans and other animals. All of neuroimaging work is based on the same logic and inference as Berns used in his study.
Finally, Hal, I was struck by one statement you made in your blog about having to recognize and respect the autonomy of dogs. It seems to me that you think dogs are not autonomous and should not be respected as autonomous beings. If I am misinterpreting your statement, let me know.
Thanks!

"[Leslie Irvine] writes, 'If we recognize the intrinsic value of animals’ lives, then it is immoral to keep them for our pleasure, regardless of whether we call them companions or pets.' If, as Dr. Berns claims in the title of his op ed, 'Dogs Are People, Too', how can we justify imprisoning them in our houses...?"

It's not clear to me why "recognizing the intrinsic value of animals' lives" is supposed to be so problematic. Certainly, recognizing animal personhood would proscribe cruel treatment, but it wouldn't necessarily mean an end to companion animals.

Not all legal persons have complete autonomy. After all, we recognize the intrinsic value of human children – we even grant them the legal status of "persons" – yet that doesn't exclude us from "imprisoning them in our houses" and compelling them to do all sorts of things (e.g., eating vegetables, doing chores, going to school) that run counter to their immediate interests.

Hoss -- You make some really good points -- I would like to publish a blog post comprised of the more thoughtfull responses to my post on dogs as people. I'd like to include yours. If it is ok for me to use your real name - send me an e-mail and let me know who to credit your comments to. Send to herzog@email.wcu.edu.

Children have certain rights, but they also have certain responsibilities and accountability (both of which increase towards the age of majority). E.g. education is compulsory and a child is responsible and accountable for attending school rather than skipping classes to do something more enjoyable.

A new-born human has a subset of adult rights and no responsibility, but does not have the right to freedom for many years.

If one were to say that an animal is an autonomous person (not a human person) then before we assign it rights we must first decide on it's equivalent human age (or disposition) otherwise the whole thing becomes a farce.

Using Michael's example of a table, I suggest it has no rights primarily because it is incapable of taking responsibility, not because it has no sentience. If it acts in a way that causes injury (by the act of breaking) it is not responsible. However, place the same table in a restaurant and the situation changes: the restaurant must compensate for the injury, furthermore, the table has an effective right to be treated with respect by the staff and customers (who are responsible and accountable for honouring that effective right).

My point is that, whether we are talking about a restaurant table, a dog, or a child, it is the appointed guardian who is ultimately responsible for ensuring their well-being and is accountable for their wrongdoings (such as violating the rights of others or causing injury). Non-human persons cannot begin to comprehend these point therefore they cannot be responsible or accountable. More importantly, non-human persons cannot honour the rights of any other persons because they cannot know that the rights exist. E.g. if we grant to dogs, say, the right to respect then dogs must respect each other and be held to account when they fail. It would be somewhat difficult for a dog to report a violation of its rights.

The end result of granting rights without also demanding responsibility is mayhem.

Of course you're right, Pete, that dogs can't assume various reponsibilities or be held accountable for violating the rights of others; presumably they're incapable of even understanding the concept.

Yet I'm not sure your conclusion follows. Namely:

"...if we grant to dogs, say, the right to respect then dogs must respect each other and be held to account when they fail."

As you yourself mentioned, we have abundant examples of rights-holders who can't be held accountable for respecting others' interests. A newborn infant, for example, is no more capable than Michael's kitchen table when to comes to respecting other's rights. Yet we still respect the infant's basic rights. We don't allow people to breed human infants for sale, for example, or use human infants for testing the toxicity of new cosmetics. So what's the rationale for not extending this same sort of respect to dogs — or to any other sentient creatures, for that matter?

Thanks for your reply, Hoss. I forgot to make it clear in my comment that it was just my thoughts on the subject because I find the animal rights issue perplexing. Perhaps what bothers me is that fanatics might take it to the extreme such that it becomes almost impossible to use even sniffer dogs, or any animal for medical research. I'm sure some vegetarians and vegans would have a field day with meat producers.

Nations that currently violate human rights would roll on the floor laughing if we try to impose animal rights, unfortunately. People who abuse animals where there exist laws to prohibit it will not stop if the animals are assigned rights.

When animals such as rats, pigeons, and recently badgers, breed to the level of becoming a pest that causes damage or spreads disease there is no option other than culling. Surely, that would make any assigned rights conditional on their numbers, location, behaviour, etc. And what about feral dogs breeding out of control in urban areas, how could they not be granted the same rights as domestic dogs?

If these questions have already been adequately answered then hopefully someone will kindly point me towards the information.

Extremists exist on both sides and are best ignored. As a medical scientist I do not believe there is any justification for using any animal for research that may harm the animal. What works in on species does not always work in another. The argument is put that animal research may save human lives. No, at best it may prolong life but the one certainty of life is death.

We should not be inhibited in what we do because nations that violate human rights would laugh at us for imposing human rights. People who abuse animals should be penalized regardless.

The animal that has most prominently bred to plague proportions, causing considerable damage to the planet, is homo sapiens. Do you suggest a cull of humans? There is no question in my mind that feral dogs should have the same rights. The do need control in urban areas through funding of kennels that do not kill dogs but care for them as long as needed until they are found homes and through adequate control of the whole pet shop, puppy farm, breeding industry that places more dogs into the world than there are permanent homes for.

Sorry to be rude, Duncan, but I would expect a medical scientist to know that a feral dog is untameable and dangerous to humans i.e. they cannot be found a home. Ideally, solve the problem at source as you suggested. This problem has nothing to do with animal rights, it needs funding and more strict enforcement of current laws.

You asked me "Do you suggest a cull of humans?" to which I can be equally silly and ask you: Do you suggest the humane capture of, and provision of accommodation for, mosquitoes, aphids, locusts, rats, pigeons, badgers, and a plethora of other pests (all of which are sentient)?

You said "The argument is put that animal research may save human lives. No, at best it may prolong life but the one certainty of life is death.", which is incorrect. At best, animal research can significantly reduce human suffering, which is far more important to those suffering than prolonging human life.

Death is indeed a certainty, so why is it that voluntary euthanasia is illegal in so many jurisdictions? Would you like to see the same concept applied to animals i.e. incurably sick animals must be denied a humane death and be forced to suffer for however long it takes them to die; and who should provide the cost of their care during this period (which could be many years)?

As you didn't seem to read my comment correctly, I'll make it clear to you that I am asking questions, I am not suggesting morally correct solutions.

Pete you are not being rude about feral dogs just ignorant and 100% wrong. One of the oldest type of dogs around is found in the middle east where I tamed 3 wild born dogs despite everyone telling me it was impossible. All it takes is time, patience and understanding. These are dogs that have survived without human intervention for thousand of years which is about as feral as they get. Plainly you have either no experience of that or lacked the skills time and patience. It has everything to do with animal rights as they have every right to live. Yes it needs funding 7.5 million dogs were killed in the USA last year alone. I guess we cant expect sufficient funding to prevent that from a bankrupt country. I am not being silly at all but factual if you dare to look at facts and not bury your head in the sand. We were not discussing insects but animals which are yet to be shown to be persons. Badgers do not need to be homed, they too have provided their own homes for many years. Voluntary euthanasia is unlawful in places for many reasons not least of which is doctors aim to save lives not end them and to expect them to do other wise opens an enormous can of worms that the legal system seems unable to clarify. There are documented cases of people who believed they were about to die and wanted euthanasia and then recovered. You were asking questions and I give my opinion to the answers to them. If you prefer not to make suggestions and don't like mine that's your choice and problem. Anyway this sort of discussion on the web solves nothing. You are entitled to your view as am I. I say again with current scientific methods there is no need for using animals at all as alternatives are available. Leaving this discussion as there is no point.

Thank you for your replies, Duncan, I do appreciate you taking the time to write them. If I was able to help the dog situation in the USA I would (I adore dogs and I still dearly miss the companionship of mine, just as much today as I did twenty years ago).

Personally, I'd prefer to evaluate arguments on their own merits, regardless of how "extreme" they (or their messengers) might seem. Recall that many progressive positions considered normal today were once rejected as being too "extremist" for serious discussion. These include support for such outrageous ideas as abolition of slavery and voting rights for women.

Pete, I think your culling dilemma is a good one. An example of this might be the problem of deer overpopulation we have here in some parts of the U.S., which is a serious problem for human (and deer) safety due to the many auto accidents that result. Some municipalities deal with the problem by simply killing the animals, despite the existence of other options. Immunocontraception is more difficult, of course, but not impossible. What often prevents its implementation is the unwillingness of people to treat these animals as sentient individuals rather than merely commodities to be exploited.

But still, as you say, there may be extraordinary cases where killing is the only option to protect human life. Could this be accommodated under personhood? That's a legal question I'm not qualified to answer, but there would seem to be some relevant precedents. We do have legal contexts that allow the killing of legal persons when no other option is available. Think of self-defense, for example, or law enforcement, or military action.

In any case, I do think the focus on legal personhood — and the legal quagmire it could create — may be a distraction from the real issue: namely, giving some sort of non-trivial consideration to animals' very basic interests in not being killed or tortured. Currently, these interests barely protected for dogs, and not at all for broad, arbitrarily chosen classes of animals we needlessly kill for palate pleasure. Whether non-human animals are "persons" per se doesn't really matter to me; what matters is that we stop causing them so much unnecessary suffering and death.

Thanks, Hoss. That all makes a great deal of sense to me. I've never discussed these issues until Hal wrote this article because they seem to be taboo subjects for many people here in the UK. My confusion was caused by trying to think about all the issues at once so your reply has unravelled my intertwined threads of thought.

I've spent most of my life living in rural locations in which nearly everyone had a great deal of respect for animals and their habitats. I'm just starting to realize that there are far too many others who see animals just as commodities.

Pete, in the legal system there are many different kinds of rights. There's a big difference between, say, the right to drive a car, which carries a responsibility, and the right not to be tortured, which is a basic right that carries no responsibilities. Humans who are suffering from dementia have rights that have no relation to responsibilities. The right not to be held in slavery carries no responsibilities.

When we speak of the basic rights to bodily liberty and bodily integrity, we are speaking of specific rights that are unrelated to responsibilities.

Thanks for the explanation, Michael, and many thanks for your comments on this article and Hal's follow-up. I read the article simply because I'm passionately interested in neuroscience so you can imagine what a surprise it's been to develop an interested in human and animal rights, and be able to think clearly about them instead of my previous confusion.

My original comment was a bit flippant and sarcastic (though true). So here are some accolades and concerns I have with Berns' "breakthrough."

I agree that the simple act of acclimating dogs to lie still in an fMRI machine is a kind of breakthrough in animal science. As you mentioned, though, MRI data is not always a reliable indicator of what's really going on in someone's brain. There's a well-known instance where photographs were shown to a dead salmon placed in an MRI machine, just for laughs. That is, until the scans came back and showed that activity was detected in different areas of the brain when the fish was “shown” the pictures!

There are two other problems I see with MRI data. One is that the test subject has to lie perfectly still. If we're studying whether dogs dream while they're asleep (since they exhibit REM, it's quite likely that they do), then having the dog hold perfectly still is fine (though most dogs twitch or "run" in their sleep).

This may be why the scientists at Stonybrook/Brookhaven have created a portable PET scanner for use with lab rats. It allows researchers to extract data while the animals are moving around in a fairly normal fashion. The device -- called a RatCAP for Rat Conscious Animal PET -- is a bit unwieldy but most rats seem to get used to wearing it.

So what I'm hoping to see come along sometime in the future is a new form of scanner -- neither MRI or PET -- that can be focused on dogs, or dogs and their owners, while they're out walking, playing fetch, playing with other dogs in the park, etc. This, I think, would give a much clearer picture of what's going on in the dog's "mind," and might even show some surprising similarities in how dogs and owners are emotionally tuned to one another.

And since we're talking about the emotional lives of animals, it might be prudent not to focus solely on scanning the brain because emotions don't originate in the brain but in the body; the brain is like a central-processing unit.

In the meantime, it might be interesting to do an fMRI scan on the nerve bundles found in a dog's (or human's) solar plexus. More than 90% of the body's serotonin is found in the portions of the alimentary canal found below the solar plexus, and 50% of the body's dopamine is located there as well. (This is in humans, and there's likely to be a similar proportion in dogs as well).

Finally as to the seeming inconsistency in how Berns seems to be using operant conditioning techniques to acclimate the dogs to being in the scanner, while decrying their effectiveness, this is quite understandable to me. The question isn't whether "positive training" techniques work, it's in how and why they work. Randy Gallistel has done some interesting work showing that animals can't possibly learn and exhibit new behaviors through associative learning -- which is a feedback system based on the simplest form of logic (the "if/then proposition") -- and that a more likely model is that they learn through pattern recognition, which is a pre-cursor to logic and language, and takes place on an unconscious level in both animals and humans, and takes place almost instantaneously.